The Problems of Evil and Tips for Answering Them

Hi all! I just started a new class from Biola - "Why God Allows Evil". It is a topic that anyone engaging in apologetics at all (and we all should be!)should be familiar with. This is a huge topic, so I think instead of trying to cover a bunch in one post, I'll follow the class and do several posts on the interesting and extremely relevant things we're learning.

Part of our reading this week was The Many Faces of Evil by John S. Feinberg. The first thing I found helpful is Feinberg's argument that there is no "the problem of evil. There are, in fact, many problems of evil. One exampley is what Feinberg calls the religious problem of evil which is an experiential problem, which is different than the theological/philosophical problem of evil that is concerned with why evil in general exists if there is an all-powerful loving God. There is also a distinction between moral evil and natural evil (e.g. tornadoes, earthquakes, famine, disease, etc.). Then there are the problems of the quantity, intensity, and gratuitousness of evil. (The problem of gratuitousness of evil has to do with seemingly purposeless evils or evil that goes beyond what we think it should have to in order to serve a particular purpose.) Finally, there is the problem of hell.

It is important to distinguish between the problems of evil because how you address evil will be determined by which problem you are addressing.

An illustration will make this clear. Suppose your child has just been diagnosed with leukemia. Understandably, you are devastated. You don't understand why God is allowing this to happen to your family. You've been a faithful Christian, serving and loving God; you pray for your kids health and safety constantly. Your friend comes quickly to your side as soon as she hears the news. As you cry on her shoulder and ask why this is happening, your Christian friend launches into a lecture about evil being a necessary part of our world because we have a loving God who values our free will, but with that comes the ability to make the wrong choice, and so evil exists. Not only is this not the time for a lesson of any kind, but even if it were, this is completely the wrong one. You are giving the "free will defense" which answers the theological/philosophical problem of evil nicely (for those who hold free will as true), but it has very little to do with the religious/experiential problem of evil. This woman simply needs care and love, not lectures.

It's also important to distinguish between the problems of evil because you want to know what your argument is meant to answer. If you are offering the free will defense as an argument against moral evil, you would be right in doing so. But if the person you are talking with objects because the free will defense doesn't explain natural evil, or the quantity of evil, etc. he would be wrong in his objection. The free will defense isn't meant to answer all problems of evil, only moral evil. Just because it can't answer all the problems the presence of evil in our world presents doesn't meant it can't answer any of the problems evil presents. There are other arguments to address the other problems of evil.

Another good tip is to make sure an objector to your arguments is basing his objections on what you believe. For instance, if he were to say he doesn't buy your free will argument because God directs all our actions so that we could not do otherwise and is therefore responsible for all the evil in the world, but you believe God does NOT direct all our actions and we are free to choose between right and wrong, then his objection fails in this case.

So those are some things to be aware of when you find yourself in a discussion about one of the problems of evil. Get out there and engage! You'll get better at it the more you do it...but remember...always with gentleness and respect! It's not us against them - it's God working through us to bring them to Himself.

Blessings!

Much of the material for this post was taken from "The Many Faces of Evil" by John S. Feinberg, revised and expanded edition, published by Crossway Books in 2004.

Which Church Has it Right?

Hi everyone! I hope you all had a great Easter with your families and friends. My family attended a wonderful Easter service at our church, hosted Easter dinner in our home - my husband was happy to get to try his hand at smoking a chicken on his new Green Egg grill...and it was very good! - and had an Easter egg hunt for our little guy. It was a good weekend celebrating the resurrection of our Savior!

I wanted to let you all know about the upcoming sermon series at Lincoln Berean. I think it will be extremely interesting, valuable, and you may even be surprised by the answers! "Which Church Has it Right? This is the subject that will be explored using the letters to the seven churches in Revelation as a guide. If you aren't in the Lincoln, NE area, you can find the sermons on the right hand side of this blog under the RSS feed section each week. You can also find a link to Lincoln Berean under the links section, also on the right hand side. From there, you can access the sermons by clicking on the "resources" tab, then selecting "sermons" from the drop down menu.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this series as the weeks proceed, so post them here!

Enjoy, learn, & share!!

An Apologetic for the Resurrection

In less than a week, we will celebrate Easter. As much as I LOVE chocolate easter eggs, for Christians Easter is about something else altogether - the resurrection of our Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ. Belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus is a central doctrine of Christianity. As the apostle Paul says, "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied." (1Cor. 15:17-20)

With Easter at hand, you may have the chance to discuss the resurrection with skeptics, so what follows is a good apologetic means for doing so.

This material comes from a lecture from one of my classes given by an expert on the resurrection, Dr. Gary Habermas.

Since most skeptics will not grant that the Bible is true, it is difficult to use it as evidence for the resurrection. However, Habermas likes to use what he calls the "minimal facts approach" which are facts that about 95% of all scholars agree on. While there are about 20 facts that the vast majority of scholars will give you, this approach uses the best attested of these. This is the strength of this apologetic method when talking with skeptics because it uses facts even critical scholars will grant.

For apologetic purposes, 1 Corinthians 15 is the best text to use for the resurrection. All critics will agree that Paul wrote 1 Cor. and find him very reliable. Paul is in favor with the critics. 1 Cor. is a very early account of the resurrection, earlier than the Gospels. There is virtually no scholar that will disagree that 1 Cor. was written within about 25 years (54-57 A.D.) of this all-important miracle.

So the eyewitness accounts (those apostles from whom Paul received his material) are very early. It would be ludicrous for someone to say that an eyewitness to the death and resurrection of Jesus would not be able to remember the event 25 years after it happened. In fact, we have no problem trusting eye witness accounts for historical events that come much later than 25 years.

Nearly all critics will also agree that Paul believed he saw a post-resurrection appearance of Jesus on the road to Damascus, so skeptics will also need to explain Paul's own account if they want to deny the resurrection.

Before Paul wrote his letter to the Corinthians, he was in Corinth and preached the Gospel which, of course, includes the resurrection. This would have been within about 20 years of the event. Paul says he passed on what he received from the other apostles who had seen the resurrected Jesus. Critics agree that what he received (the Gospel message) was from Peter and James in around AD 35 when he was in Jerusalem. As you can see, this is incredibly early - within a few years of Jesus's death and resurrection.

So the apostles believed they had seen Jesus risen from the dead. Critics will grant that. We can also be certain that men are not willing to die for what they know to be a lie. The next step is to go from what the disciples believed to the fact of the resurrection.

Important facts to keep in mind:
-Jesus did die by crucifixion
-The disciples believed they had seen Jesus resurrected from the dead.
-They were so convinced that they were willing to be martyred for their faith in Jesus.
-Paul, formerly the persecutor of those who followed Jesus, was so convinced he had seen Jesus physically resurrected that he became a believer and one of the best missionaries God's Kingdom has ever had.

Also:
-We have very early report of the resurrection - earlier than any other historical source for any other historical event that we trust.
-James, Jesus's brother became a believer after seeing Jesus risen even though he had not been a believer before Jesus's death.
-The resurrection was most certainly examined very carefully precisely because it was a central belief in the Christian faith.

So we have very good reason for believing the resurrection was an historical fact - God breaking in to history in a supernatural way - because all the available facts we have point to the reality of the resurrection. The fact that the disciples believed they saw the resurrected Christ, plus the fact that all other theories to explain away the resurrection fail and raise more questions than they answer, lead to the conclusion that Jesus did rise from the dead. Through Jesus, God defeated sin and death and provided a way back to Him for those who will accept it.

Happy Easter & Praise God!!